Article mostly talked about less creative devs ripping off popular apps, or even apps made by somebody who once made a popular app.

I think that's an interesting counter-point to people's problems with patents, trademarks, and the like. People that want to make mobile games are afraid that they'll end up like the guy King ripped off to make Candy Crush, and there's nothing really available to protect them from that. But, I don't really research those issues much, so maybe it's just back to the simple problem of "poor people can't afford lawyers, so they can pound sand"

//though it's all derivative anyway, Candy matching game guy. What was wrong with Bejeweled?

One interesting concept is whether or not it would be worth Apple and Googles time to develop a modest protocol for internal copyright enforcement. They can do it all contractually, and the punishment is that you can't have the app in their store which is easy to enforce or a part of the apps revenues go to the original creator. A modest effort at such a policy would most likely create a huge boost to the quality of apps.

everybody constanly complains about America's copyright and patent laws, constantly bemoaning the downside. However, the upside is that they are a huge part of what has made America the center of the world in terms of innovation. The only other countries that compete in terms of innovation are the ones that have very similar terms to what we have. With the caveat of Europe, whom we learn back-and-forth from each other to make improvements.

I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason. Copyright is great when you want to stop people from copying and distributing your work, but it doesn't help you a whit against a competitor who makes their own version of something with similar features - and while that's fine in the music and movie space where people want to see Guardians of the Galaxy, and not the mockbuster Protectors of the Planets or something, it doesn't work well in software where your tapping bird game is equally replaceable with their tapping bird game.

Everyone points to Zynga particularly as being known for ripping off small developers... What most people don't know is that Zygna has many, many patents and pending applications. Unsurprising, really - they know exactly what would deter copiers like themselves.

Theaetetus:I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

gnosis301:Theaetetus: I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

I've spoken before the IDGA and run panels at PAX, and probably play more video games than most Farkers, so yeah, I understand them quite well. OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

Theaetetus:gnosis301: Theaetetus: I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

I've spoken before the IDGA and run panels at PAX, and probably play more video games than most Farkers, so yeah, I understand them quite well. OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

This sounds like it will create more companies who can sit on their laurels than continue to innovate.

gnosis301:Theaetetus: gnosis301: Theaetetus: I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

I've spoken before the IDGA and run panels at PAX, and probably play more video games than most Farkers, so yeah, I understand them quite well. OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

This sounds like it will create more companies who can sit on their laurels than continue to innovate.

I'm not sure how. You realize that patent owners don't get a share of tax revenue, for example, right? They still have to generate revenue. All this does is prevents others - like the aforementioned Zynga - from swooping in after someone else has done all the development, beta testing, and rebalancing, and spit out a look-alike game in a week. What's innovative about that?

gnosis301:Theaetetus: gnosis301: Theaetetus: I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

I've spoken before the IDGA and run panels at PAX, and probably play more video games than most Farkers, so yeah, I understand them quite well. OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

This sounds like it will create more companies who can sit on their laurels than continue to innovate.

loonatic112358:gnosis301: Theaetetus: gnosis301: Theaetetus: I've got a client who develops mobile games, and has a pending patent application for exactly this reason.

Let's hope you understand enough about these features to know that patenting them won't stifle other developers. I'd hate to hear that someone patented "gameplay mechanics that solely occur on two axes of a three dimensional coordinate system."

I've spoken before the IDGA and run panels at PAX, and probably play more video games than most Farkers, so yeah, I understand them quite well. OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

This sounds like it will create more companies who can sit on their laurels than continue to innovate.

Theaetetus:All this does is prevents others - like the aforementioned Zynga - from swooping in after someone else has done all the development, beta testing, and rebalancing, and spit out a look-alike game in a week.

Well, it doesn't really PREVENT them from doing that in any meaningful sense. It just means that if the original publisher takes the copycat publisher to court after the fact, the first party is more likely to get a favorable ruling.

Congratulations, you now own all the IP and other assets left behind after a shady flap-by-night game publisher went under!

Mike_LowELL:Theaetetus: OTOH, the whole point is to stifle other developers - the copycats.

Want to stop copycats? Create something that can't be copied by two bumfarks in their garage. Create a game worth playing.

Of course, that requires that the "game worth playing" be one that wasn't created by an indie developer in his or her garage, since the only things that can't be feasibly copied by the two bumfarks are hours and hours of voice acting, fully orchestral scores, detailed environments made by giant teams of animators, etc. So, yeah, that works great for a AAA developer spending millions on a game. Doesn't work so well for a small developer, and certainly isn't relevant to this thread about mobile games.

Theaetetus:Of course, that requires that the "game worth playing" be one that wasn't created by an indie developer in his or her garage, since the only things that can't be feasibly copied by the two bumfarks are hours and hours of voice acting, fully orchestral scores, detailed environments made by giant teams of animators, etc. So, yeah, that works great for a AAA developer spending millions on a game. Doesn't work so well for a small developer, and certainly isn't relevant to this thread about mobile games.

It's plenty possible for one or two men to create a game that can hold to that degree of scrutiny, and it doesn't even require publisher-quality aesthetic design. Crimzon Clover is one of the best-kept secrets on the personal computer and it was created by one person. You just need to come up with something more complex than the countless endless runners and match clear puzzle games for phones. They get copied for a reason: They're easy to make.

Mike_LowELL:Theaetetus: Of course, that requires that the "game worth playing" be one that wasn't created by an indie developer in his or her garage, since the only things that can't be feasibly copied by the two bumfarks are hours and hours of voice acting, fully orchestral scores, detailed environments made by giant teams of animators, etc. So, yeah, that works great for a AAA developer spending millions on a game. Doesn't work so well for a small developer, and certainly isn't relevant to this thread about mobile games.

It's plenty possible for one or two men to create a game that can hold to that degree of scrutiny, and it doesn't even require publisher-quality aesthetic design. Crimzon Clover is one of the best-kept secrets on the personal computer and it was created by one person. You just need to come up with something more complex than the countless endless runners and match clear puzzle games for phones. They get copied for a reason: They're easy to make.

They get copied because they're easy to make and because they're popular. Why waste time making a copy of "one of the best-kept secrets on the personal computer"?

... but that said, vertical scrolling bullet hell games have been around for at least three decades. It's certainly not something he created.

Just downloaded it and played it. It's the same thing as Flappy Bird, essentially: not hard, just terrible controls. But hey, if people want that, then I guess good for him for finding his market niche.

So, simple graphics again, single "button" "controls" again, and the game already has people who've mastered it with 9999 points (I know, not really, but the epeen is super important to some)

I guess it's nice to have a free, simple little time waster, but with funky collision, odd backwards acceleration (only sometimes), and no real point (aside from time wasting) I can't see how this thing could make any money outside of the ads it shows whenever you lose.